Category Archives: Politics

It seems Rand Paul will run for President in 2016. He has charmed all the factions of the Republican party, but ultimately might sell out his libertarian base with his shameless support of the TPP and failure to demonstrate any intentions of halting the United States’ insatiable appetite for ravenous imperialism.

Rand Paul seems to be indulging in the same mainstream fantasies about terrorism when he fails to recognize the reality of government-manufactured groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Libertarians won’t address this issue because Rand Paul is their hope for real change, but it is important to remember that Rand Paul is NOT Ron Paul and the system will change Rand Paul before he changes it.

Will the change that Washington needs be sacrificed for another political fad, or will the public wake up and demand serious solutions?

The Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision to protect religious freedom was a huge victory for the first amendment, forcing a company to pay for abortifacients is another nail on the coffin of liberty(it is bad enough that tax payer money goes to the shameless eugenics punks called Planned Parenthood),

and states like Oklahoma threaten the same freedoms with their obvious double standard to erect the Ten Commandments in the city square, while denying other religious institutions like the Satanic Temple their right to be represented with their privately funded statue of Baphomet.

The first amendment protects religious freedom and specifically prohibits a state sponsored religion. It is the Christian majorities’ right to have the Ten Commandments posted—it becomes a state sponsored religion once they claim exclusivity with their religious freedom.

Majorities rarely need to be protected. The United States has a tradition of protecting minority rights—that is the intent of the system of government known as the Constitutional Republic;

the system of voting known as the electoral college ensures that a majority cannot strip away the rights of a few. Remember the famous quote about the evils of a Democracy? It is two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner!

The word “tolerance” gets thrown around a lot and people have a tendency to become so tolerant that they become intolerant and that is the case with all these politically correct initiatives. This case is no different, and it gets easy to fall into the totalitarian trap of regulating behavior for “the greater good”.

The fact that government officials in Oklahoma regard the Baphomet monument as a laughable concept really exposes the hypocrisy of the selective promotion of their own versions of reality.

Take a moment to consider the words of Friedrich Nietzsche:

“The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.”

Does it sound like a good idea to you to have your taxes fund police quotas that reinforce the world’s biggest prison population while the drugs are brought in by the government and the same tax dollars are used to fund wars all over the world and various terrorist organizations benefit from the same money—your money given to the almighty above the law government who calls anyone a dissident if they don’t support wholesale violence and ravenous decadence?!

Are you convinced John Kerry and Lindsey Graham have your best interests at heart?

What a joke!

In case you forgot the college of Hawaii study that labels government as the biggest psychopathic murderer in all of history being responsible for over 250,000,000 deaths—democide.

And you want to let these people read all your emails, listen to your phone calls, grope you at the airport, and put you in prison for some arbitrary made up victimless crime garbage?

They look for any excuse they can to kill people and you want to continue feeding the beast?

If some pervert has a badge is it okay if they look through your window at night “just to make sure you’re not doing anything illegal”? And while you’re at it, let some nosey agent read your emails to make sure you’re not guilty of a thought crime.

So in short the New World Order, the big bad boogeyman of politics is not coming it is already here with sharp fangs positioned on your collective necks and it isn’t about to bite it already has and it wants seconds and thirds and it will continue to feed until you are a dried up wrinkled leather mass ready to be ground up for public consumption and sold as a trendy treat.

The good news is it isn’t over.

In the words of the late great Bruce Lee:

“Defeat is a state of mind; no one is ever defeated until defeat has been accepted as a reality.”

prison or the rise of aborted African American babies in the united states, this is met with vehement opposition by indoctrinated trolls as a blasphemy against their sacred god, the state.

“eugenics” they say, “was in the past, and there is no way it could happen today.”

This line of reasoning stems from the fact that if they actually it admit it is happening then they would have to do something about it, but they are too trendy and cool to care about real social issues.

Who can be bothered with the extermination of “sub-humans,” right? It is easier to look away and deny it.

The reality is that automatic legalization of everyone will destroy the economy, spread disease, and increase crime rates.

It is a historical, political science fact, by the way—it is a socialist scheme called the cloward and piven strategy to collapse the economy.

Unfortunately the automatic legalization policy is being implemented with no congressional approval in stark contrast to the proposal of some type of actual immigration reform.

There was an episode of The Independents on Fox where two immigration experts were invited on the show to discuss immigration reform, and the objectivity of the program was thrown out the window in exchange for emotionally charged opinions thrown at the conservative who attempted to state facts while being attacked by the three hosts of the show, and the other guest.

Libertarianism should not be reinforcement of such blatant ignorance just because it is trendy and liberal to appear altruistic and accepting of everyone.

(Side note: This is not an attack on the Fox show, The Independents. For the time being this show is actually a refreshing, and much needed libertarian alternative to the leftist internet show The Young Turks, however shows like this need to be held to a higher standard and subject to harsher criticism).

The elite are hijacking the libertarian movement, because it threatens their position of power.

The libertarian movement is diverse and will be co-opted by fascist thugs, they will take advantage of divisiveness like the republican party being split six different ways(e.g., neo cons, moderates, paleo conservatives, fiscal, tea party, theological—“social conservative”).

The undoing of the liberty movement will be knit picky pieces like the New York Times article entitled The Libertarian Moment which examines Rand Paul’s possible 2016 run for president.

The article implies something might be amiss because Senator Paul has not appeared on the new trendy libertarian show on Fox, The Independents.

And although the NYT article is not a direct hit piece on Senator Paul, it does seem like a giant back-handed compliment to the libertarian movement in the sense that it sheds light on the shift toward social liberal issues and fiscal conservative mind set while rejecting the authoritarianism of the democrats’ brand of bizarre surveillance wealth redistribution cloward and piven post industrial fetish politics, while suggesting that the mainstream will accept libertarianism on its own terms, referring to those who oppose the corporate bankster federal reserve as a “radical fringe”;

If an ideology like libertarianism is to enter the mainstream it is clear that the elites will control the talking points, framing the arguments correctly to guide the public’s consciousness on these issues like immigration and monetary policy.

The article discusses the rise in public acceptance of libertarian ideals while pointing out the obvious and constant libertarian vulnerability of various types of libertarian who are radically opposed to one another. The NYT article highlights Reason’s founder Nick Gillespie, the supposed modern day libertarian prophet. It says he prefers federal reserve notes over bitcoin—isn’t that precious?

How mainstream of him! Ignorance is so easily applauded now. Since when do libertarians endorse a central bank?

Central banks, like the federal reserve are tenets of Marxism.

The article builds up the movement, and then crushes its integrity when the reader’s defenses are down, neglecting Nick Gillespie’s point about changing the term libertarian from noun to modifier;

the justification being that libertarianism is an ever changing concept, it is a personal outlook of freedom and the fact that the party overall lacks a unified vision is not a weakness as the article implies, but a very powerful strength that the other parties lack.

Another article on the Reason website, entitled “Is Rand Paul Trying to Have it Both Ways on Gay Marriage?”

examines attacks on Rand Paul for appearing to be wishy-washy on the issue of marriage equality is indicative that Senator Paul threatens the established order, and so there is a growing need to attack him on issues where there is a manufactured consensus. The heart of the issue is glossed over and it becomes distorted by arguing semantics—similar to how the leftists morph infanticide with the euphemism “pro choice”.

Needless to say, the liberals are freaking out because Senator Paul is not following the script of “group rights” appeasement.

As the Reason article points out he isn’t really betraying his position, he is not flip-flopping, because for anyone who has been paying attention he has been very consistent on the issue of marriage equality. Paul’s position is to give local governments the sole discretion on the matter, stripping the federal government of its monopoly on personal issues such as these.

Liberty-minded individuals don’t need to agree on every issue, but they need to do research and have historical perspective on these issues.

If the public continues to succumb to this rabid propaganda then we might as well accept the prison of the left/right paradigm, and be prepared for the election of the authoritarian maniac Clinton on the left or some neo con psychopath coming out of the wood work on the right.

links between above-the-law oligarchs and a series of environmental front groups to influence policy are established.

Environmental groups such as the prominent Sea Change Foundation, which is a private outfit, are highlighted because of their reliance on wealthy, undisclosed foreign donors, and due to their massive cash flow they consequently have an uncanny influence on “green movements”, or seemingly grassroots activism.

The report emphasizes that the phenomenon of the oligarchs influence on the various environmentalist movements is a vast conspiracy, the hundreds of millions of dollars referenced in the report is but a very small fraction of the funds involved overall, and hence the report itself falls short in exposing the overall scheme in its obscene enormity.

The tax system is exploited as funds are sent through charity and non profit organizations to finance initiatives which strengthen the desired agenda that the report suggests is to attacks jobs, stifles economic development, and ruins infrastructure projects across the country.

The elite’s insidious agenda is further realized through dutiful, hand-picked employees a “green revolving door” that ensure obedience to the party line through the reinforcement of policies that instill the pseudo scientific “green movement,” a lucrative program that exploits the public by using government funds through grants to provide funds to select “grass roots movements” securing positions of power for the corrupt oligarchs.

The process is further elucidated by means of demonstrating how all sections on the totem pole are funded by the same source causing the powerful illusion of spontaneity linked to a supposed “green concern”. A news agency funded by the Park Foundation, provides anti fracking talking points based on the Park Foundation’s study which is picked up by media financially influenced by the Park Foundation providing exposure to the public through social media created by the Park Foundation operatives who promulgate the contrived liberal movements that push the agenda of the Park Foundation.

This is report is another indication of the technocrat’s plan to create a neo feudal system that strips people of their inalienable rights granted by god—not provided by the state, that locks the public into a severe economic prison, and firmly establishes a controlled society with unlimited and unquestioned power forever by virtue of the scientific dictatorship–the final revolution against humanity.

The existence of this report created by a branch of the government in a country hijacked by criminal foreign interests offers hope for those liberty-minded individuals who constantly observe the intentional destruction of individual rights, those who take note of and document the corporate-controlled media’s complete lack of interests in true stories of corruption.

This report is another affirmation of the data collected from various sources over the years

which suggests there is a power elite that is exempt from the law, oligarchs who are not held to the same social contract as the ordinary citizenry; most importantly this report is an invaluable study guide for alternative media researchers, and bloggers alike.

There is a huge divide in the libertarian party that is rarely discussed. This unspoken argument continues to weigh down those who are concerned with individual liberties.

The discussion is muddled with semantics, and meaningless labels. The realm of politics has been reduced to theater, and people have been conditioned to accept a diminished level of participation.

The issue of true liberalism is never properly articulated in the public forum. This stems from a general ignorance of classical liberalism verses modern day conservatism.

At this point, it is important to note that language in politics serves little purpose but to confuse, and has generally become ineffective for having a true debate. Genuine debate becomes stifled because of a serious inability to have meaningful conversations where both people involved in the discussion understand each others’ point because the language has been so drastically altered.

There are several different schools of thought in the libertarian realm, and it is most assuredly not an accident that these things are withheld from corporate-controlled media sanitized talking points.

Similar to the variety of Republicans that exist across the conservative spectrum, there are also many shades of libertarian philosophy. The tensions that are prevalent continue to plague the liberty movement mostly from a failure to realize the bigger picture.

Libertarianism appeals to many people across the party lines because of the emphasis on personal freedom, but the idea of true freedom with all its implications is a bitter pill to swallow for most because it suggests little to no government intervention. The real concept of a private citizen has been almost completely removed from the public mind. Domestication, social engineering practices have become the practices of the state to maintain control.

The private citizen ideal is now a foreign principal that few would recognize, and less would understand if it was able to manifest unfettered. In a truly liberal system the people are elevated above the government. The state is not supposed to be some god-like entity with unquestioned psychotic authority, but it is actually an instrument of the people.

“When the people fear the government there is tyranny and when the government fears the people there is liberty.”

The question of sacrificing liberty for security is not some impending decision America is on the verge of making, it has already been decided and it was a slow collective lobotomy orchestrated under the guise of progressiveness.

The real issue that more often than not gets diluted is that it is really about liberty verses tyranny. There’s going to be disagreements about certain issues like abortion, euthanasia, marriage, and drugs, etc.

This may be heresy, but Ayn Rand’s objectivist philosophy is not the be-all-end-all of libertarianism.

If the public is duped into being defined by these issues at the expense of striving for an overall state of legitimate classical liberalism then the tyrannical control freaks will always win by virtue of their ability to take advantage of people’s good will.

For example if people start saying, Rand Paul is a sell-out because of a stance on a certain issue like immigration and they effectively neglect his long record of liberty-minded policy then that must be examined as a symptom of corporate-controlled media propaganda designed to divide the people and create more in-fighting as a hedge against serious liberty growing at the grass roots level.

Rand Paul gets labeled an “isolationist” all the time, and somehow this term has been morphed to equate with a general sense of detachment from reality, the assumption being that if America ceases to have a policing presence in the world then all the country’s will collapse under the threat of terrorism, when nothing could be farther from the truth. The same liberal democrats that are criticizing Paul for wanting to reform America’s foreign policy were the same “conspiracy theorists” during the Bush years who questioned the legality of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

All in all everyone has to maintain a sense of perspective and refrain from getting locked into this senseless left right debate. Populist candidates like Rand Paul will always be painted as old fashioned racist conspiracy theorists, but the key to decoding the corporate propaganda, which will cleverly appeal to people in a manner that promises to grant more freedom to the people by means of some draconian liberal reform, is to gauge the end goal of the message—does the result of the promise empower the people, or is it simply a more oppressive measure decorated in pretty speeches? It will quickly become clear if the person in question supports liberty or tyranny.

The liberty minded parties such as the Constitutional, and Libertarians possess an inherent divisiveness by virtue of being a group of individualists. It is a characteristic that exists much to the respective parties’ own detriment. It is a systemic issue that prevents the respective parties from going very far in the mainstream political spectrum. Of course it obviously does them no favors being constantly demonized in popular culture, labeled as “terrorists” and “extremists” simply because of a natural aversion to compromise on moral issues that ultimately affect personal liberty.

With this in mind, the liberty-minded groups have to exercise a measured level of discernment with “grass roots” organizations and the front people of these groups so as to avoid a corporate co-opted candidate who says all the right things to get elected, the person who is all the right things to all the right people. This will inevitably provide the conditions for an incurable case of apathy on the part of the constituents, because “their guy got in.”

Voters must be open to the possibility that the Tea party could easily be funded by trans-national corporate interests in an attempt to both infiltrate the party to stifle dissent and secure political power, or use the party to prop up another party. This is a pretty common occurrence in politics.

There were claims that the Republicans funded Ralph Nader in the 2000 election to hurt Gore’s chance of winning. Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive Party candidate was famously funded by corporate interests, compromising votes for William Howard Taft, which guaranteed Woodrow Wilson’s win. This ultimately cost the election for the other competing factions. More recently Libertarian candidate for Governor, Robert Sarvis in Virginia was funded by Democrats in an attempt to stifle the Republicans chances of winning.

It is not a far stretch of the imagination to consider that the elements of the Tea Party could either be used as leverage to give power to another mainstream party or it could be hi-jacked by rabid corporate interests in an attempt to maintain control of the system. At the same time, the liberty-minded voters must remember to refrain from inaction stemming from the false notion that they are powerless to cause change. Since these liberty-minded groups are filled with the remnants of society’s “rugged individualists” their bad habit of being overly critical of anyone who happens to rise to prominence because they don’t fit the ideal standards.

Ron Paul was the closest thing to a Libertarian in the mainstream. Dr. Paul was also ripped to shreds by the corporate-controlled media, and by conservative in-fighting—all amounting to the same issues that plague his son Rand Paul—not being “Ayn Randian” enough for the good of the party–the same in-fighting that is the catalyst for the destruction of the Republican Party.

On the one hand, it is positive that liberty-minded constituents won’t support Rand Paul or Ron Paul just because they are libertarians, but they are far from the “lesser of two evil” paradigm that we are accustomed to.

After Bush, the public desperately wanted a change, and Obama’s oratory prowess was welcomed with open arms.

Many voters are disillusioned by the system, and so they are unable to believe that anything can be done on their part to make a serious change. The generally benevolent and overly critical conservative, or classically liberal people could very well sabotage a true grass roots movementthemselves, or on the other hand exalt it to a position beyond reproach.

The public simply needs to hold liberty candidates to a higher standard lest there be sacred cows.